The Arrogance of Some

There was a recent posting on Bilerico entitled "What Barack Obama really said about transgender rights." It was in reference to his recent speech to the Human Right Campaign. The bottom line is, he didn't really say much of anything, but that is not really what this article is about.

Like many Bilerico postings, what is really interesting shows up in the comments. And like just about any comments on an issue involving those who are transgender, the most aggressive of the gender fascists, "Monica" Helms is sure to show up. And he did.

And as is often the case with any discussion on Bilerico, someone who does not adhere to the official party line, and who has not been tossed off of Bilerico for actually making valid arguments against that party line, will show up, and ask something like:

I do not understand the intentional conflation of these two very different states, one a medical condition, requiring medical treatment, and the other an adopted identity that, there seems to be general agreement, does not require medical treatment.

I don't understand why it is necessary to say both are the same, why it is demeaning to one or the other just to point out the differences, and the different needs, and why the emphatic response that this differentiation is politically imprudent.

Now, that seems pretty straightforward. A lot of us don't understand these things, or more to the point simply do not agree with these positions, but we are open to discussing them rationally with those who do push these positions. So, are they willing to engage in such a discussion? Let's see what Mr. Helms has to say on the matter:

You don't "understand," because you refuse to understand. SOP.

Now, quite frankly, that strikes me as a pretty dismissive and arrogant response. Mr. Helms seem to expect everyone to just blindly accept his "transgender dogma," without question. But of course, some don't:

I don't understand because I don't subscribe to your ideology.

And it angers you that you can't impose it on me--and others.

Your ideology is fading.

Too true. Helms cannot see that people just might disagree with him. Worse, he simply cannot accept that disagreement. But he is not the only one, here is what "Angela Brightfeather," born Jim Sheedy, who spent most of his life as a successful businessman after a seven year stint in the Army as a drill instructor, has to say:

"And it angers you that you can't impose it on me--and others.

Your ideology is fading."

And now you understand why we are divided and will continue to be so. People like yourself continue to create rungs on the ladder that you climb at the expense of leaving others behind. Very similar to what HRC wanted to do to "Transgender people" in ENDA.

That makes it very difficult to take you seriously since your willing to do to some people in your own community, exactly what your fighting against someone else doing to you.

Now, first off you have to understand, this fellow is Mr. Helm's partner in founding Trangender American Veteran Association. Now, notice how he insists on referring to "people in your own community." Again, no one gets a choice from the gender fascists. You are part of their community, whether you like it, or not. But, then what else would one expect from a drill instructor?

And then Helms chimes in with this final bit of arrogance:

She's from Canada. I can't understand why she even cares what happens here in our country. She doesn't have a dog in this hunt. I think you pinpointed the real reason she commented here.

When all else fails, he tries to find some excuse for just dimissing this person's comments as otherwise invalid. As Mr. Helms would say, I guess that SOP, Standard Operating Procedure.

Quite simply, many of us are tired of being used as the transgender community's "beard." We are tired of them trying to hide their fetishtic behavior behind those of us who actually have a medical problem. And we will continue speaking out.

A Simple Suggestion

I would like to put forward a simple suggestion that would simplify the issue of a so-called inclusive ENDA. A provision should be added that would include the following provisions:

1. Full non-discrimination protection would extend only to those who are legitimately transitioning to the other sex. That is, it would apply only to pre-op and post-op transsexuals. No so-called "non-ops" or other variants of transgender would receive full protection.
2. Full protection would mean that they are allowed, for the purposes of the real life test, to present as the target sex, and with the exception of situations that involve inevitable nudity, would be accorded the full protection of the law.
3. Anyone else would only be protected with regards to behavior that is not job related. That is, crossdressers would not be allowed to crossdress unless their employer has no problem with it. The same would apply to non-ops, and such. If you are not surgery tracked, you present as your birth sex if that is what your employer says.
4. To prevent people from simply lying about their situation, the law would also include a provision stating that any and all health plans would have to include coverage for transsexual surgery. If a person does not complete such surgery within a reasonable period of time, and cannot present compelling evidence that there is a medical contradiction, and that they are actively making efforts to remedy the situation if possible (i.e. a diabetic who needs to lower their blood sugar) then they would be deemed to no longer be in transition and their level of legal protection would revert to that afforded crossdressers.

Of course, such a law would be controversial, and it would be vigorously opposed by the Religious Right...but it would do several things to end certain conflicts. It would eliminate the issue of how to deal with crossdressers. Under the current proposed law, they may not even receive this much protection since the law does not include "gender expression." And, it would serve to end the conflict between transsexuals and the rest. Transsexuals would be recognized as needing protection for their transition, and the rest would not be allowed to impose their behavior on people.

Yes, I realize it is probably a silly idea, but it does serve to prove a simple point. The gender fascists want to use transsexuals to get their way. They want to make people think that they simply want to protect people who have a medical issue and who want to correct what is, in effect, a birth defect. But, what they really want is protection for chosen behavior, which is something no law has ever done before. And no, don't give me the argument that protections for religion does that. That is simply absurd.

No, my proposal would expose them for the frauds that they are, as they would never accept such a law, even as they pretend it is really what they want,

The Issue of Passing

Passing...it is a common concept for many who are HBS, transsexual, and even transgender. It is not uncommon, particularly in the early stages of transition, for those who suffer from HBS to speak in terms of "passing," meaning that one is perceived as being a member of their "target sex."

The actual term "passing" seems to have originated in the 1920s in reference to African-Americans who were light-skinned enough to be perceived as Caucasian. It has become something of a sociological term for the ability of a person to be regarded as a member of a combination of social groups other than his or her own.

For those born with HBS, the concept of passing may be a part of the early stages of their transition, but they usually outrgow it quickly as they become more confident. For those who are transgender it either becomes a way of life, or an anathema to be condemned at all costs.

An example of this latter attitude can be seen in the "Autumn" Sandeen's article on Pam's House Blend, "Four-Year Transactivists." One has to remember, Mr. Sandeen identifies as an out, loud, and proud "transgender activist." In the article, he bemoans the fact that many transsexuals come to realize that they are able to be accepted as women, and then decide to stop being out. And, of course. he simply cannot comprehend the simple truth that a woman simply might realize that she has no reason to continue to be seen as a man. As is typical of the gender fascists, Mr Sandeen has to spin this as a negative thing:

Welcome to the reality of how "passing" impacts individuals in the trans community; welcome to the broader concept of how there are individual members of oppressed, minority populations who don't appear to be members of their population(s), and "pass" as members of the unoppressed, majority population.

Like other "transgender" activists, he believes transsexuals are not really women, they are members of an oppressed minority population. He recoils in horror at the idea that one might actually succeed in one's transition and move on with one's life as simply a woman.

Mr. Sandeen goes on to whine about how he is treated:

Personally, I've been called Mr. Sandeen, "Autumn" Sandeen, and called by male pronouns by both people on the religious right and by people who would seem to be my natural allies. To trans people who take the public stage, I tell them "expect to be hit by a lot of lighting" -- similar names to what folk on both sides my transactivist peers are called are what they should expect to also be called.

Sadly, he simply cannot conceive of the glaring error he makes here... He simply cannot, or perhaps refuses to concede, that those who refer to him that way are not at all his natural allies. We are quite opposed to what he is trying to force on people. I share few, if any of his goals. I do not want to see gender "deconstructed." I do not believe that the criteria for being a woman should be that you say you are. I do not believe that women should have penises. (Yes, some of us are born with them, but if you want to keep it, you are not remotely a woman.) I do not believe that people should be able to change their birth certificate without having completed surgery. I do not want to see ENDA passed in a form that would acceptable to Mr. Sandeen. I do not want to be called "transgender." So where this man gets that I am his "natural ally" is beyond me.
In any case, for those of us who are HBS, and not "transgender" do move on from the concept of passing. We realize that to say that we "pass" would be to give in to the silliness of those like Mr. Sandeen who are not, and ever will be women, and who are all too aware of this. I mean, simply put, one cannot pass as what one is.

Gender Facism in Action

In a comment to a post on Bilerico about a Florida representative who supposedly said he would support ENDA if "gender identity" was removed, gender fascist "Monica" Helms said the following:

I spoke with the LGBT Legislative Aid in his office in DC and he said that his was a totally false rumor. He supports a fully inclusive ENDA, that protects gay, lesbian, bisexual and TRANSGRENDER people from employment discrimination, which includes crossdressers, pre-op, non-op, post op, intersex, genderqueer and classical transsexuals, whether they want protection or not.

Now, like the diehard gender fascist that he is, Mr. Helms once against ignores the wishes of classic transsexuals who do not identify as transgender, rubs our noses in it, and then goes on to assert that this "protection" will be forced on us whether we like it or not.

As I said, this is gender fascism in action. Because of his stupid remark, I now actively oppose an inclusive ENDA. The law that Mr. Helms desires is harmful to women, including post-op classic transsexuals and survivors of HBS. If Mr. Helms has his way, women will lose any right to privacy from men like him.

Let me be clear. I have no problem with ENDA protecting gays, lesbians, and bisexuals. I object to a law that will protect men who wish to engage in the behavior of crossdressing like Mr. Helms. I object to a law that will force women to share the bathroom with such men. I object to a law that will force employers to allow me to dress as women when the mood strikes them. And I object to a law that will effectively remove legal distinctions between the sexes and redefine sex as being what one wants it to be.

I would also support a law that protects post-ops and, that would provide very narrowly defined protections for pre-ops. Anyone who is discovered to have abused said law by lying about their plans for surgery would be subject to prosecution.

Missing the point...

Anyone who spends any time observing transgender extremists knows that they have a singular obsession with bathrooms. One of their persistent demands is free access based solely on a person's claimed state of mind at any particular moment. In another words, if you say, for the period of time that one wishes to enter a bathroom that is not consistent with your physical sex, you only have to say that your mental gender is appropriate and barge on in.

This point was brought home by a post by lead gender fascist "Autummn" Sandeen on Pam's House Blend. Sandeen is having a major hissy fit because the Society for Human Resource Management has come out in favor of the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) but does not include "gender identity" in its endorsement. This is their statement from their FAQ on the topic:

While most SHRM members who participated in the development of our sexual orientation statement believed people should not be discriminated against based on their gender identity, there was universal concern expressed over the process to accommodate individuals in transgender situations. Since these accommodation challenges raised so many concerns among supporters and opponents alike, “gender identity” was not included in the SHRM statement.

Now, that seems pretty straightforward to me. I can certainly think of a number of issues that might arise in accomodating the wide range of behaviors that are covered by the transgender label. Remember, this law will also apply to people who are not in transition, but who might claim some issue with gender identity. Apparently Sandeen can see only one issue:

I'm guessing their apparent fretting about the "challenges" that businesses could have trying to "accommodate" gender variant/trans people is code for saying that they're worrying about gender variant/trans people using workplace restrooms -- why give direct voice to their biased prejudgments and illiberality when one can use code words and phrases instead?

Nevermind that all sorts of issues come up that have nothing to do with bathrooms. Issues like how to accomodate crossdressers who demand the right to express their feminine side whenever the mood strikes them. Imagine the effect on the workplace when you are never sure if one of the staff is going to show up as "John" or "Mary" on any given day. Worse, imagine that such a person is a postion where he has to deal with the public! What about having to deal with an employee who is militantly gender queer, whose appearance and behavior is totally disruptive.

No, bathrooms are not the sole issue for those who have to deal with transgender employees, or even the most important. But for those like Sandeen, they are a nice smoke screen to hide behind.

The Second Most Irritating Barney Gets a Big Thank You

The second most irritating Barney, that purple dinosaur being the most irritating one, got a big thank you from some leading transgender activists in San Francisco this past week. Yes, in spite of all he has done to trash transsexual women, they are thanking Massachusetts congressman Barney Frank for hiring a "transman" as his legislative assistant.


Many might find this somewhat impressive, but it has to be kept in mind that even Jesse Helms once hired a black man, James Meredith, as his legislative asssistant. And that did not really seem to do much to improve Helm's attitudes.

Sadly, this sort of thing happens a lot. How many times have people been fooledinto believing that the Human Rights Campaign is going to support an "inclusive ENDA." Now, personally, I don't really want to be lumped in with the "transgender" crowd in order to receive protection for my rights, but it may be the only way. And I think any sort of "inclusive ENDA" actually needs to be carefully written in order to prevent it from leading to more problems than it solves. But the bottom line is, like Frank, the HRC seems to be willing to toss transsexuals under the bus.

Will Frank's new token trans man make any difference? Or will he just supply some small measure of cover when Frank repeats past history? Only time will tell, but until it does, any thanks should have been withheld. But, alas, that is not how the "transgender" crowd does things.

The Problem with ENDA

Well, Barney Frank is about to have his way, and attempt to pass the Employment Non-Discrimination Act without including gender identity as a protected class. He argues, as he has for years, that Congress is just not ready to include "transgender" people.

Unfortunately, Frank has a point.

The "transgender" activists are reaping what they have sown. Transgender is a very broad term, so broad as to be effectively meaningless. And the terminology used in most laws protecting "transgender" people is deliberately vague, so as to be as inclusive as possible. The problem is, not all "transgender" behavior is equal. What most people probably envision when speaking of "transgender inclusion" is protecting people who are transsexual, and who are either in the process of transition, or who are post-transition. What the law, unfortunately would do, is extend protection to just about anything that can be claimed as related to "gender identity." For example, it would theoretically protect crossdressers who suddenly decide to show up for work dressed as a woman.

The law only seems to have two limitations. It does not apply to churches and it would not force people to share facilities where total nudity is inevitable. It does not contain any provisions that would prevent people from effectively deciding what their "gender identity" is on a daily, or even more frequent, basis. Imagine if an employee is a crossdresser and insists that when the mood strikes "him," he will show up for work dressed "en femme." Now, some might say, "So what?" And in some cases, that might be a legitimate question. But suppose he is in a position that requires public contact, and well, his appearance is a bit less than credible. Imagine that problems that might cause for his employer.

Sadly, we have a situation where there is not good outcome. If the law passes with the current provisions for protecting "transgender" people, it will create a nightmare situation that may well result in serious backlash. If it passes without those protections, then any and all discrimination, including that against peoeple with legitimate medical needs, such as those with Harry Benjamin Syndrome, will become totally legal anywhere where there are not already laws in place.